Flat Earth?

[paul's got wright]

23 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The Severn Bore does exactly that.

That is why i posted the comment to manxy to see how it sits with manxy. I already know your religious beliefs remember x

[paul's got wright]

Correct yourself china, then we can talk. The two word description is hypothesis test!

 Thats what a scientific experiment is. You are most welcome x

[paul's got wright]

Here is a university link for you china seems you are so rusty!

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

 

[P.K.]

28 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

That is why i posted the comment to manxy to see how it sits with manxy. I already know your religious beliefs remember x

You already know my religious beliefs???

MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

I barely know them myself!

So how does a tidal bore caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon sit with manxy?

You really are a piece of work....

[La Colombe]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

So how does a tidal bore caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon sit with manxy?

She probably doesn't like you much. 

[paul's got wright]

43 minutes ago, P.K. said:

You already know my religious beliefs???

MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

I barely know them myself!

So how does a tidal bore caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon sit with manxy?

You really are a piece of work....

so if someone questions your beliefs on a public forum they are to be deemed " a piece of work"?

what does that even  mean!

you would have to provide scientific validation for the theory of gravity first, wouldn't you pk. something you have never done, yet religiously believe in! 

what a piece of work you really are hey?

[paul's got wright]

2 hours ago, P.K. said:

Laughable!

These days anyone could actually carry out this experiment in their own back garden and reproduce the same result.

This result proves conclusively that the earth is a sphere.

The important aspect of this experiment is that it is just so simple it can't be challenged by anything.

Hence the attemp to introduce religion etc into the debate in an attempt to muddy the waters = FAIL.

Eratosthenes = QED. 

what experiment?

what is the hypothesis for Eratosthenes "experiment" pk?

have a read of this before your brain engages your fingers

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html#Heading3

 

[Chinahand]

1 hour ago, paul's got wright said:

Correct yourself china, then we can talk. The two word description is hypothesis test!

 Thats what a scientific experiment is. You are most welcome x

Yes, that's reasonably helpful Paul.  Should we work with this.

So firstly:

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Please note the collectively and over time parts of the scientific endeavour. It is rare that a single scientist in a single set of results goes through every stage of the scientific method.

A huge amount of science is what Earnest Rutherford would describe as stamp collecting - observing the world and collecting a body of evidence as grist for the theoreticians' mill.

Let's look at your current bugbear, Eratosthenes.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Now, I've asked you quite a few times now.  What did Eratosthenes observe - are you going to have a go at explaining this, or are you going to go and pick a silly fight with the peanut gallery?

Come on Paul - probably for the first time in this thread, let's not have deepities or Youtube videos.  What do you think Eratosthenes observed?

[wrighty]

Don't really know why I'm doing this, but I can defend PGW's point of view on Eratosthenes, a bit.  He assumed the earth was round (based on common sense, ships over the horizon, etc) and used the well experiment to estimate the round earth's circumference.  This was not a test of a spherical vs a flat earth.

Now, with a spherical earth model, he estimated a circumference of about 40000km, close to the true figure.  This was based on a 7 degree angle of the sun's rays about 800km away from a place where the sun was known to be directly overhead.  If the earth were flat, the same findings would imply that the sun is about 6500km above the surface.  So the same result could happen with either a spherical earth and a far distant sun, or a flat earth with a relatively nearby sun.

If Eratosthenes had chosen to do so, he could have then gone twice the distance away from the well and measured the angle again.  This could have been used to test which of the two models fit with the observations.  A spherical earth would give a 14 degree angle, a flat earth slightly less than this.  Assuming the measurements could be made with the required accuracy (they can now, but not in 200BC) this experiment would add evidential weight to one model or the other.  But he didn't do this, as far as I know, probably because he didn't think a flat earth model was worthy of further consideration.

[paul's got wright]

53 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Yes, that's reasonably helpful Paul.  Should we work with this.

So firstly:

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Please note the collectively and over time parts of the scientific endeavour. It is rare that a single scientist in a single set of results goes through every stage of the scientific method.

A huge amount of science is what Earnest Rutherford would describe as stamp collecting - observing the world and collecting a body of evidence as grist for the theoreticians' mill.

Let's look at your current bugbear, Eratosthenes.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Now, I've asked you quite a few times now.  What did Eratosthenes observe - are you going to have a go at explaining this, or are you going to go and pick a silly fight with the peanut gallery?

Come on Paul - probably for the first time in this thread, let's not have deepities or Youtube videos.  What do you think Eratosthenes observed?

We all know ghe sgory china ive just posted the actors re telling it for us. We know what the story says he observed. 

Wrighty has just gone back over it briefly. What is your point?

Eratosthenes didn't do a scientific experiment. It was assumption and theory. Are they part of the scientific method i just cited for you?

[paul's got wright]

5 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Paul, you are the one being dogmatic here.  Try to engage with how science is actually done - observations, theory, prediction/conclusion.  

I ask again - in a universe with a flat Earth the equivalent of Eratosthenes would be praised for using the evidence he saw to draw what conclusion, predict what?

Are you capable of working it out?  

 

Which step of the scientific method is theory china?

I didnt see it in the citation i gave you?

Because its not there as i told you, you are incorrect

 

[dilligaf]

Ever heard Billy Connelly's song " The goldfish" ?

[paul's got wright]

3 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

Wrong again you are too proud to admit you dont know and wont look it up. I posted it here and you accepted it!

Just look it up you are completely wrong and i will post the obvious two word description of what an experiment is when you calm down.

eratosthenes is old old news in fe china. Go on the flat earth debate, present it to the panel and see how far you get. Science assumes nothing china, its a method not a philosophy. Wake up x

Once again china, where does it mention models in the citation i provided you, for the steps of the scientific method?

It doesnt, so you are talkin nonsense once again, in order to influence people to believe what you do.

I asked you what an experiment means in science, you didnt know.

Its so easy to understand yet i had to tell you it is an hypothesis test, its that simple. But you need it to be more complicated to try to explain your belief system. That's what this is about for people of the strongest faith. Defending their beliefs regardless of the evidence to the contrary 

[Chinahand]

Paul, I'm perfectly happy to go through this with you, and yes, let's use your University of Rochester template - though I will continue to say to you this is a simplification and the reality of science is a lot messier than this - we could go through countless Nature or Science peer reviewed papers and they wouldn't exactly fit the template.  It's a guide, a reasonable guide, but a simplification.  But let's use it and Eratosthenes to see where we go.

Are you willing to give it a go or not?

I ask again - can you identify what he observed or not?  I'm not trying to trick you, just seeing if you will actually give a straight answer for once.

[paul's got wright]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

Don't really know why I'm doing this, but I can defend PGW's point of view on Eratosthenes, a bit.  He assumed the earth was round (based on common sense, ships over the horizon, etc) and used the well experiment to estimate the round earth's circumference.  This was not a test of a spherical vs a flat earth.

Now, with a spherical earth model, he estimated a circumference of about 40000km, close to the true figure.  This was based on a 7 degree angle of the sun's rays about 800km away from a place where the sun was known to be directly overhead.  If the earth were flat, the same findings would imply that the sun is about 6500km above the surface.  So the same result could happen with either a spherical earth and a far distant sun, or a flat earth with a relatively nearby sun.

If Eratosthenes had chosen to do so, he could have then gone twice the distance away from the well and measured the angle again.  This could have been used to test which of the two models fit with the observations.  A spherical earth would give a 14 degree angle, a flat earth slightly less than this.  Assuming the measurements could be made with the required accuracy (they can now, but not in 200BC) this experiment would add evidential weight to one model or the other.  But he didn't do this, as far as I know, probably because he didn't think a flat earth model was worthy of further consideration.

From the citation i posted, university of Rochester

Common mistakes in applying the scientific method

" the most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of the phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" can tempt us to BELIEVE that no test is needed"

My point exactly, illustrated perfectly.